Gentle Reader -- You are welcome to peruse my web-based journal. I assure you that my contributions to this medium will be both infrequent and inconsequential. Read on!

posted by Carlton at 10:31 PM

I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT THE BAILOUT

But this is annoying:

Paulson resisted suggestions being made by Democrats that the program be
changed to include further relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures
and to include an additional $50 billion stimulus effort. Some Democrats have
also suggested capping compensation of executives at firms who get the bailout
help.

Paulson said he was concerned that debate over adding all of those
proposals would slow passage of the bill, delaying the rescue effort that is so
urgently needed to get financial markets moving again.

Also proposed, fixing some of the more horrible and taxpayer-unfriendly elements of the bankruptcy code. I think these include the sections making credit card debt impossible to discharge in bakruptcy -- giving a perverse incentive to debtors to pay the cards each month and stop paying the mortgage.

If it's that big of an emergency, shouldn't we take the kitchen sink approach? The numbers here are so large already that it boggles the imagination. If we're in this for $700,000,000,000, what's another $100,000,000,000? Especially if it might really do some good? posted by Carlton at 2:20 PM

SILENT RUNNING

Not a lot of posting here lately. Obviously there's lots of news. Maybe I'll have something to say about it in the days ahead -- or maybe not! posted by Carlton at 11:17 PM

THE BAILOUT

I don't claim to have any particular expertise on this, but I think that the poplist outrage towards the proposed plan is misplaced. There's a real emergency at hand right now, an imminent threat that if not properly handled could result in a truly miserable state of affairs, affecting all Americans. The proposed plan may not work, or be the best possible, but some of the rhetoric I've seen is wrongheaded.

My understanding is that the interbank lending which allows our financial system to function is simply not happening - because no one wants to lend to an insolvent bank, and it's impossible to tell who is and isn't insolvent because these huge assets (the mortgage-backed securities, primarily) held by the banks are impossible to value. Are they worth 50% of face value? 5%? This new agency sets a minimum price for the assets, and then we can sort out who is actually insolvent using that price.

Two responses to the objections: 1) The assets the government would buy aren't valueless, just difficult to value -- and some of them may end up being worth equal or more than the government pays for them. The government isn't throwing this $700 bn out the window (though it may net a loss). 2) If a man sets his own house on fire for the insurance money, we still call the fire department. Later, we put him in jail. We're calling the fire department right now. posted by Carlton at 11:16 PM

I CLEARLY MEANT "L"

When I said "W" before. posted by Carlton at 11:15 PM

ANOTHER PREDICTION

The next big financial institution to make news by going under will have a name that begins with the letter 'W.'

That is all. posted by Carlton at 7:56 PM

SILENCE

After I posted the last one, I noticed that I actually had some comments on some old stuff. Somebody asked/taunted me about Hillary losing to Obama, and why I'd been so quiet. Believe it or not, they are unrelated phenomena.

Executive summary: Hillary lost, and by the time she dropped out I was ready for her to go. She had all the advantages, and should have won, but she squandered every them all. My thumbnail take on her candidacy was that she let loyalty to longtime staffers (Penn) overwhelm good sense. Maybe I'll write more about that, but I think the moment has passed.

(I do still like her -- she's very smart, tireless, and I believe she really wants most of what could be described as a progressive agenda. And she looked great, especially when she made her concession speech. Loyalty to that stylist, I support. I did not care for her campaign.)

Now, I'm fully on the Obama love train. If I start doing this again, there will certainly be more on this topic. posted by Carlton at 10:04 PM

SO, IT'S BEEN A WHILE/PREDICTION

I just popped in to offer an off-the-cuff prediction, based on nothing except an itch that I developed in my testicles while reading through some news articles today: The Republicans will not run John McCain as nominee for president. "Presumptive" is as close as this guy gets.

Before the convention, the GOP will get its collective act together and decide that he can't win, that he is so crippled and bumbling as a candidate that ANYONE would be a better choice. Certain people will have a nice quiet get-together with McCain, and he will shortly therafter announce some newly-discovered health problems. Then, with a bare minimum of disruption, the new candidate will step into McCain's shoes and be elected at the convention in the first vote. (When Republicans get the memo, they follow the memo.)

Why do I think this? C'mon y'all, the guy is TERRIBLE. He can't keep his own story straight, he can't remember which country we're talking about. He doesn't know anything (Shia v. Sunni, for example, or where Pakistan is on the map), and doesn't really care to know -- too much like what we've already had for too long. His advisors (Gramm, Black) are even more odious and narrow-minded than he is. He can't win, and the right people are starting to realize it. Have you heard any of his speeches? The man is effing RIDICULOUS. People are starting to NOTICE.

Who will be on the ticket in his place? That's much harder to predict, but I'll go with it: Romney/Rice. (And they lose!)

You heard it here first! posted by Carlton at 9:46 PM

SUPERDELEGATES

There's been a lot of this kind of horseshit spread around recently:

This is not a negotiable position. If the Democratic Party does not
nominate the candidate for POTUS that the majority (or plurality) of its
participants in primaries and caucuses want it to nominate, then I will quit the
Democratic Party. If you think this is somehow rejecting the rules and bylaws of
the Democratic Party, you are wrong. The fact is that there is nothing in the
bylaws of the Democratic Party that dictate how super delegates should vote at
the Democratic national convention. In the absence of any legal dictation of how
they should vote, I will hold them to the principles that make me a Democrat: as
the democratic institution through which internal disputes of the American
center-left are resolved. If the Democratic Party fails to respect those
principles, and their "super" delegates nominate someone for POTUS other than
the person who received the most support during Democratic primaries and
caucuses, then I fail to see any reason to continue participating in the
Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is not a democratic institution, then
to hell with the Democratic Party.

I need to get this down before the entire campaign changes, because it seems to do so overnight, these days: Superdelegates have been a part of the Democratic party primary system for a long time. Since the 1980s, I believe. Hillary and Bill didn't think it up all on their own.

You need 2000-odd delegates to win the nomination. They can be regular delegates. They can be superdelegates. The winner will have a mix -- mathematically, I think the winner has to have both.

If Hillary is behind in regular delgates and gets enough superdelegates to win, she wins. Period. If she's ahead in regular delegates, and Obama gets put over the top by supers, he wins. Period. Either one could happen. Do you know what they call a candidate in that situation? The nominee. There is no legitimate way to resolve it otherwise.

Is it ideal? Does it make people feel warm and fuzzy about all those votes they just cast? Does it validate all those nights spent watching MSNBC waiting for primary/caucus results? Does it reflect a pure form of direct democracy? No on all counts.

But those are the rules. They may be bad, stupid rules, but they are the rules. They were in place long before this cycle. For whatever reason, the rulemakers deliberately eliminated direct democracy from the process. They gave a great deal of power to these 700-800 party apparatchiks -- who may be idiots, hacks, or Joe Lieberman -- and this time, they may just be asked to exercise that power. They will probably decide the winner.

Maybe that's stupid, but that's how you win the Democratic nomination. posted by Carlton at 10:51 PM

GREG

I think Greg wants me to acknowledge his official disapproval of Senator Clinton. Duly noted. I would like to acknowledge the fact that he seems to have successfully procreated.

Views on Clinton: Boo!

Procreation: Yay! posted by Carlton at 5:35 PM

posted by Carlton at 5:24 PM